This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/26/2020 at 16:56:36 (UTC).

LUKE YUGUANG VS AMERICAN NEW ERA TV MEDIA GROUP INC

Case Summary

On 06/08/2018 LUKE YUGUANG filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against AMERICAN NEW ERA TV MEDIA GROUP INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DUKES, ROBERT A. and PETER A. HERNANDEZ. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0367

  • Filing Date:

    06/08/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DUKES, ROBERT A.

PETER A. HERNANDEZ

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

YUGUANG LUKE

LIU LI

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs, Cross Defendants and Not Classified By Court

JING HONG-WEI

AMERICAN NEW ERA TV MEDIA GROUP INC

WANG LIAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

WADE STEPHEN R.

WADE STEPHEN ROBERT

Defendant, Cross Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

RISING KEVIN D. LAW OFFICES OF

RISING KEVIN DALE

MA RICK

 

Court Documents

Notice - NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO HONG-WEI JING'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION APPEARANCE AND TESTIMONY OF CROSS-DEFENDANT LIAN WANG

9/2/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO HONG-WEI JING'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION APPEARANCE AND TESTIMONY OF CROSS-DEFENDANT LIAN WANG

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER;) OF 05/01/2020

5/1/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER;) OF 05/01/2020

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

3/26/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

1/7/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; DECLARATION OF JONATHAN J. BOUSTANI

1/7/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; DECLARATION OF JONATHAN J. BOUSTANI

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEFENDANT HONG-WEI JING'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ...)

1/9/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEFENDANT HONG-WEI JING'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ...)

Separate Statement

12/5/2019: Separate Statement

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JONATHAN J. BOUSTANI IN SUPPORT OF HONG-WEI JING'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

12/5/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JONATHAN J. BOUSTANI IN SUPPORT OF HONG-WEI JING'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO RE...)

11/19/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO RE...)

Notice - NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO HONG=WEI JING'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) TO LIAN WANG

11/13/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO HONG=WEI JING'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) TO LIAN WANG

Separate Statement

9/13/2019: Separate Statement

Substitution of Attorney

8/23/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Answer

2/8/2019: Answer

Minute Order - Minute Order (Case Management Conference;)

1/9/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Case Management Conference;)

Civil Case Cover Sheet

6/8/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice - OF ERRATA

9/12/2018: Notice - OF ERRATA

Case Management Statement

10/19/2018: Case Management Statement

Notice of Case Management Conference

6/13/2018: Notice of Case Management Conference

58 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/02/2020
  • Hearing11/02/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department O at 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2020
  • Hearing11/02/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department O at 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2020
  • Hearing11/02/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department O at 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (DECLARATION OF LIAN WANG IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES); Filed by LUKE YUGUANG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment; Hearing on Motion to ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
111 More Docket Entries
  • 07/27/2018
  • DocketAffidavit - misc; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2018
  • DocketAffidavit ; Filed by LUKE YUGUANG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2018
  • DocketAffidavit OF PROCESS SERVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by LUKE YUGUANG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by LUKE YUGUANG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: KC070367    Hearing Date: September 18, 2020    Dept: O

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Hong-Wei Jing’s motion to compel Cross-Defendant Lian Wang to appear and testify at deposition is GRANTED. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $3,125.00.

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Hong-Wei Jing (“Jing”) moves to compel Cross-Defendant Lian Wang (“Wang”) to appear and testify at deposition pursuant to Coe of Civil Procedure section 2025.450:

If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(CCP § 2025.450(a).)

The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document or tangible thing described in the deposition notice; and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.

(CCP § 2025.450(b).)

On November 15, 2019, Jing served Wang a notice of deposition requiring her to appear for her deposition on December 2, 2019. (Boustani Decl., ¶ 4.) Wang did not object to the deposition notice and failed to appear at the deposition on December 2, 2019. (Id.) On December 23, 2019, Jing’s counsel sent Wang a letter to reschedule the deposition. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Jing’s counsel never received a response to the letter. Jing’s counsel made other numerous attempts to reach Wang, but to no avail. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-10.)

The Court also notes that it did not receive an opposition from Wang.

This motion, then, is GRANTED. Sanctions in the reasonable amount of $3,125.00 are imposed against Plaintiff, payable within 30 days.

Defendant Hong-Wei Jing’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Legal Standard

A defendant moving for summary judgment/adjudication has met his burden of showing a cause of action has no merit if the defendant can show one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established. (CCP § 437c(p)(2).) “A defendant can satisfy its burden by presenting evidence that negates an element of the cause of action or evidence that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably expect to obtain evidence needed to support an element of the cause of action.” (Superior Dispatch, Inc. v. Insurance Corp. of New York (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 175, 186.) The court must liberally construe evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve all doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party. (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

Moving parties' own evidence, revealing triable issues of material fact, may support denial of a motion for summary judgment. (Simmons v. Cal. Coastal Complaint (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 790, 797 ("[T]he presence of conflicting inferences must be taken into account in testing both whether a prima facie case to support a judgment has been made and whether any issues of fact are presented for resolution as a result of opposition filings"); Sesma v. Cueto (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 108, 114 (moving party's own records revealed contrary inferences); Maxwell v. Colburn (1980) 105 Cal. App. 3d 180, 185 (reasonable inferences of negligence inferred from moving parties' own declarations).)

Statement of Facts

The present case involves a breach of an investment agreement relating to a television station company. Plaintiffs Luke Yuguang and Li Liu (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) allege that they were approached by Defendant Lian Wang (“Defendant Wang”) with a “business opportunity” to make a $100,000.00 investment into Defendant American New Era TV Media Group, Inc. (“Defendant New Era”), and in exchange Plaintiffs would be given 5% ownership interest in the television station company. Defendant Hong-Wei Jing (“Defendant Jing” or “Moving Defendant”) owns Defendant New Era. Plaintiffs allege that they wired $100,000.00 in funds to a Chase Bank account. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Jing sold Defendant New Era to a third party. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant received $400,000.00 from the purchaser of Defendant New Era, but Plaintiffs did not receive any portion of the purchase price. Plaintiffs then brought this action against Defendants Wang, New Era, and Jing on June 8, 2018. Shortly after, Plaintiffs dismissed Defendant Wang from the suit. However, Defendant Jing then filed a cross-complaint on September 10, 2018 against Defendant Wang alleging that she was the party responsible for any damages that Plaintiffs suffered.

Moving Defendant contends that Plaintiffs are unable to show a triable issue of fact that Defendant committed (1) a breach of contract, (2) fraud against Plaintiffs, (3) any violation of California’s Business and Professions Code section 17200, and (4) any conduct that would warrant the Court to impose a constructive trust over the proceeds from the sale of Defendant New Era. Moving Defendant also asks for summary adjudication of the issues in the alternative if the Court does not find summary judgment in his favor. The Court will discuss each cause of action and whether there are triable issues of fact as to each.

Breach of Contract

The elements for a breach of contract cause of action are: (1) the contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach; and (4) resulting damages. (Reichert v. General Ins. Co. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 822, 830.)

Defendant Jing contends that Plaintiffs are unable to show a triable issue of fact that Plaintiffs even had a contract with Defendant Jing. Defendant points to the fact that the Co-Operation Agreement on which Plaintiffs bring this suit explicitly provides that the agreement was between Plaintiffs and Defendant New Era, not Defendant Jing. (Defendant’s Separate Statement (“DSS”) 1, 7.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs cannot establish that Defendant Jing even knew about the Co-Operation Agreement, which was drafted by Defendant Wang. (Id.) Because he was not a party to the Co-Operation Agreement and had no notice that the agreement existed, Defendant Jing had not obligations under the Co-Operation Agreement and thus cannot be liable for a breach of the agreement. (DSS 1, 7, 8.) Thus, Defendant Jing has met his burden, and the burden now shifts to Plaintiffs to show a dispute of fact.

Plaintiffs provide no facts to dispute Defendant Jing’s assertions. In fact, they do not even dispute that Defendant Jing was not a party to the Co-Operation Agreement. (See Undisputed DSS 1, 7 (stating “no response”, which is equivalent to claiming that the fact is undisputed).) Thus, Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden.

Summary adjudication of the breach of contract cause of action is GRANTED.

Fraud

The elements for an intentional misrepresentation claim are: (1) a misrepresentation, (2) with knowledge of its falsity, (3) with the intent to induce another's reliance on the misrepresentation, (4) justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage. (Conroy v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2009) 45 Cal. 4th 1244, 1255.) Generally, representations must have been about past or existing facts, and opinions about future events or values do not constitute intentional or negligent misrepresentations, with exceptions such as a party is held out as possessing superior knowledge and plaintiff reasonably relies. (Neu-Visions Sports v. Soren (2000) 86 Cal. App. 4th 303, 308.) A misrepresentation need not be express but may be implied by or inferred from the circumstances. (Universal By-Products, Inc. v. City of Modesto (1974) 43 Cal. App. 3d 145, 151.) The generally recognized rule in California is that one who accepts the fruits of a fraud, with knowledge of the misrepresentations or concealments by which the fraud was perpetrated, thereby inferentially ratifies the fraud complained of and will be liable therefore even though he did not personally participate in the fraud. (McClung v. Watt (1922) 190 Cal. 155, 161.)

Defendant Jing contends that Plaintiffs are unable to show a triable issue of fact that Defendant Jing made any representations to Plaintiffs. Particularly, they point to the fact that Plaintiffs admitting that they have never met Defendant Jing, never spoke with him, and never communicated with him. (DSS 2, 9.)

Thus, Defendant Jing has met his burden, and the burden shifts to Plaintiffs to show a dispute of fact.

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant Jing did not need to directly make the representations to Plaintiff, and that he reasonably knew or should have known that Defendant Wang made these representations to induce Plaintiffs to invest $100,000.00 into his company. Plaintiffs point to established case law that the principal is said to have imputed knowledge when an agent holds himself or herself out as having authority to act on the principal’s behalf, and any representations made by the agent are chargeable to the principal. (See Northern Natural Gas v. Superior Court (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 983, 992.) Plaintiffs point to Defendant Wang’s Declaration, filed in support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to this motion. Particularly, Defendant Lian Wang admits to making a number of false representations to Plaintiffs, and even attests that it was with Defendant Jing’s explicit authority that Defendant Wang sought out Plaintiffs as investors. (Disputed DSS 11.)

Thus, there is a dispute of fact as to whether Defendant Jing participated in the alleged fraud perpetuated on Plaintiffs, and summary adjudication of this cause of action would be improper.

Summary adjudication of this cause of action is DENIED.

Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200

To assert a cause of action for unfair business practices arising out of fraud under Business and Professions Code section 17200, Plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) Defendant’s affirmative misrepresentation, conduct, or business practice; or omission in violation of a duty of defendant to disclose; and (2) that is likely to deceive members of the public. (Buller v. Sutter Health (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 981, 986.) Elements of fraud are not required in order to state a claim for unfair business practices, and “a plaintiff must plead and prove actual reliance to satisfy the standing requirement of section 17204 but … is not required to necessarily plead and prove individualized reliance on specific misrepresentations or false statements where … those misrepresentations and false statements were part of an extensive and long-term advertising campaign.” (In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 328.)

Defendant Jing contends that Plaintiffs are unable to show a triable issue of fact as to this cause of action because Plaintiffs have not been able to show the predicate breach of contract or fraud (i.e., Defendant Jing was not a party to the Co-Operation Agreement, and Jing never made any representations to Plaintiffs in connection with the Co-Operation Agreement.) However, as already discussed, a dispute of fact exists as to whether Defendant Jing participated in the alleged fraud perpetrated on Plaintiffs.

Thus, summary adjudication of this cause of action is DENIED.

Constructive Trust

To establish a claim for constructive trust, Plaintiff must show: (1) wrongful act (underlying claim incorporated into the cause of action); (2) specific, identifiable property or property interest, or excuse for inability to describe it; (3) plaintiff’s right to the property; and (4) defendant has title thereto. (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 76.) However, it should also be noted that constructive trust is not a cause of action, but a remedy. (Batt v. City and County of San Francisco (2007) 155 Cal. App. 4th 65, 82; see also Glue-Fold, Inc. v. Slautterback Corp. (2000) 82 Cal. App. 4th 1018, 1023.) Nevertheless, the Court will examine whether the parties met their burden with respect to this remedy.

Defendant Jing contends that Plaintiffs are unable to show a triable issue of fact as to this cause of action because Defendant does not have title to the property. Plaintiff Liu admitted in her deposition that she knew the proceeds from the sale of Defendant New Era were not transferred to Defendant Jing, but to the bank account of a third party company in China. (DSS 5, 18.) Thus, Defendant Jing has met his burden and the burden shifts to Plaintiffs to show a dispute of fact.

Plaintiffs contend that the third party company in China that received the proceeds from the sale of Defendant New Era was a company owned by Defendant Jing. (Disputed DSS 18.) Thus, there is a dispute of fact whether the funds did end up with Defendant Jing, and summary adjudication of this remedy would be improper.

Summary adjudication is DENIED.

Case Number: KC070367    Hearing Date: May 11, 2020    Dept: O

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Hong-Wei Jing’s motion to compel Defendant and Cross-Defendant Lian Wang to appear and testify at deposition is GRANTED. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $3,125.00.

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Hong-Wei Jing (“Defendant Jing”) moves to compel Defendant Cross-Defendant Lian Wang (“Cross-Defendant Wang”) to appear and testify at deposition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450:

If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(CCP § 2025.450(a).) “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document or tangible thing described in the deposition notice; and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (CCP § 2025.450(b).)

On November 15, 2019, Defendant Jing served Cross-Defendant Wang a notice of deposition requiring her to appear for her deposition on December 2, 2019. (Boustani Decl., ¶ 4.) Cross-Defendant Wang did not object to the deposition notice and failed to appear at the deposition on December 2, 2019. (Id.) On December 23, 2019, Defendant Jing’s counsel sent Cross-Defendant Wang a letter to reschedule the deposition. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Defendant Jing’s counsel never received a response to the letter. Defendant Jing’s counsel made other numerous attempts to reach Cross-Defendant Wang, but to no avail. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-10.)

The Court did not receive an opposition from Cross-Defendant Wang. This motion, then, is GRANTED. Sanctions in the reasonable amount of $3,125.00 are imposed against Cross-Defendant Wang, payable within 30 days.

Case Number: KC070367    Hearing Date: November 19, 2019    Dept: O

Cross-Complainant Hong-Wei Jing’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses for Request for Production of Documents (Set One) from Cross-Defendant Lian Wang is GRANTED. Sanctions are imposed against Cross-Defendant in the reduced reasonable sum of $2,280.00 payable within 30 days.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to a demand for production of documents if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2031.310(a)(2).)

Sections 2023.010(d) and 2031.310(h) authorize the court to impose sanctions for failure to respond to discovery without substantial justification.

On April 5, 2019, Cross-Complainant Hong-Wei Jing (“Cross-Complainant”) served its Request for Production of Documents, Set One on Cross-Defendant Lian Wang (“Cross-Defendant”). (See Declaration of Jonathan Boustani, ¶ 2.) Cross-Defendant served her responses on or about May 31, 2019. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Cross-Complainant asserted that some of the responses were deficient and, after a meet and confer, Cross-Defendant’s counsel agreed to extend Cross-Complainant’s deadline to file a motion to compel further responses until August 23, 2019. (Id. at ¶ 4, Ex. 3.) After some further meet and confer efforts by the parties’ counsels, along with an additional extension to September 13, 2019, Cross-Defendant began representing herself in the middle of these discussions. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-6, Exs. 3-5.) However, Cross-Complainant’s counsel has since been unable to reach Cross-Defendant, who has been unresponsive to counsel’s efforts. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-9, Ex. 6-7.)

The Court also did not receive an opposition from Cross-Defendant, and presumably Cross-Complainant still has not received supplemental responses from Cross-Defendant.

This Motion, then, is GRANTED. Cross-Defendant is ordered to provide responses within 30 days. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced reasonable amount of $2,280, payable within 30 days.